Back
2003 Supreme(MP) 558
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. L. KOCHAR
SURESH NARAYANAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
M. CRI. C. 841 Of 2003
Decided On : 04/23/2003
AMIT AGRAWAL, G.DESAI, SURENDRA SINGH
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused have the right to apply for re-analysis of the sample within 10 months from the date of its purchase by the Food Inspector, and the delay in filing the complaint can infringe this valuable right.
Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 7/16(i)(A)(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and emphasized the right of the accused to apply for re-analysis of the sample within 10 months from the date of its purchase by the Food Inspector. The court also referred to Supreme Court judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisaram and State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. to support its decision to quash the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition to quash the proceedings against them for the offence punishable under Section 7/16(i)(A)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sample was found adulterated, and the complaint was filed after 19 months of purchasing the sample by the Food Inspector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the complaint infringed the valuable right of the petitioners to get the sample re-analyzed, and thus, allowing the continuation of the trial would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in filing the complaint and its impact on the right of the accused to apply for re-analysis of the sample.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the complaint deprived the accused of their valuable right to get the sample re-analyzed, and thus, the continuation of the trial would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the proceedings pending before the learned CJM, Indore were quashed.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS/accused persons have filed this petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings pending against them before the learned, CJM Indore, vide RCC No. 6247/95 (State of M. P. v. Kishore Modi) for the offence punishable u/s. 7/16 (i) (A) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for brevity 'the Act' ).
( 2 ) GRAVAMEN of the case is that the respondent State of M. P. through Food Inspector has filed a criminal complaint on 9-11-1995 against the petitioners. Their case is that on 5-1-1995 Food Inspector inspected the premises of Modi Agencies and took sample of "dollops Ice Cream". After performing the required sampling formalities, he sent one sample to the State Food Laboratory, Bhopal, whilst the remaining two parts of the sample were kept with the Local Health Authority, Indore. According to the Laboratory report, the sample was not befitting with the prescribed standard. Therefore, same was found adulterated. Thus, the petitioners are liable for prosecution and conviction for the offence as mentioned above.
( 3 ) A solitary but substantial point has been raised by the learned counsel for petitioners that the sample was lifted on 5-4-1994 whereas Public Analyst Report was received on 23-5-1994 (Annexure B) but the complaint was filed on 9-11-1995 after 19 months of purchasing sample by the Food Inspector. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 appeared in Court but they did not file any application u/s. 13 (2) of the Act whereas petitioner No. 3 marked his presence on 29-6-1999 and moved an application u/s. 13 (2) of the Act for sending the sample which was kept with the Local Health Authroity, to Central Food Laboratory for further analysis. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 1-6-2002 (Annexure D) but the sample was not produced by the respondent and they have filed an application (Annexure A ). According to the fact mentioned in the application, the sample was not available and the same became unfit for further examination by Central Food Laboratory within 10 months from lifting the same from the petitioner. Therefore, the Local Health Authority has already destroyed the same and now not available for further analysis by the Central Food Laboratory.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel has emphasised on the application, reply (Annesxre E) filed by the respondents containing the fact in para two that milk or milk products, ice cream etc. are fit for analysis upto 10 month from the date of lifting/purchase by the Food Inspector even after use of preservative. Further in para 3, it is mentioned that both the bottles of sample were destroyed because of transfer of place of office on 12-12-1998 and submitted that by their own showing the sample was unfit for examination by Central Food Laboratory after 10 month of its purchase by the respondent whereas the complaint was filed after 19 months and for this delay petitioners cannot be blamed. The applicant petitioner No. 3 filed application u/s. 13 (2) of the Act on 29-6-1999. But the sample could not be sent even if it would have been available or it would have been sent the same could not be found fit for its analysis by Central Food Laboratory because complaint was filed after 19 months and sample would have been putrefied/decomposed for analysis by Central Food Laboratory. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgments passed in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisaram, AIR 1967 SC 970 : (1967 Cri LJ 939), State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. , 2000 0 AIR (SCW) 1985 : (2000 Cri LJ 2962 ).
( 5 ) THE learned Dy. AG Shri Desai appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. According to him, the petitioners were knowing this fact that the sample was not available. Therefore, filed an application u/s. 13 (2) of the Act.
( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties and having regard to the fact and legal position involved in the present cas
